TechPowered By

More tech

Armstrong lets CAS filing deadline lapse without action

By:
Cycling News
Published:
December 29, 2012, 11:47,
Updated:
December 29, 2012, 11:50
Edition:
First Edition Cycling News, Sunday, December 30, 2012
Lance Armstrong (US Postal) at the start of the 1999 Amstel Gold

Lance Armstrong (US Postal) at the start of the 1999 Amstel Gold

  • Lance Armstrong (US Postal) at the start of the 1999 Amstel Gold
  • Lance Armstrong (United States) on the podium for the time trial at the Sydney Olympics

view thumbnail gallery

IOC expected to strip him of his bronze medal from 2000 Olympics

Lance Armstrong has not appealed his lifetime ban from cycling to the Court of Arbitraiton for Sport. It is now expected that the International Olympic committee will demand the return of the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

The UCI officially notified Armstrong on December 6 of the disqualification of all his results going back as far as August 1, 1998, including his seven Tour de France titles. He had 21 days -until December 27, to appeal that decision to the Court, which confirmed on Friday that he had not done so, according to the AFP news agency.

Armstrong had announced in August that he would not challenge the USADA action against him, saying “There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now.”

There were, however, suspicions that he might make a last-minute move.

The IOC had said that it could not move against Armstrong until certain procedures were followed, procedures which are now complete.

"The IOC today will not move because we need to have the situation whereby the UCI notifies officially Mr Armstrong of the fact that he will be disqualified and declared ineligible and that he should hand over his medal," IOC President Jacques Rogge said.

"When he will be notified Mr Armstrong will have 21 days to launch an appeal. It is only after that period that the IOC can legally take action."

thelowerdepths More than 1 year ago
surprise! LA thought better of pursuing the (dead) matter and dredging up the possibility of witnesses and testimony and all that botheration …
Nappymax More than 1 year ago
So What....! Lance was and STILL IS the BEST of them All......! Go Fish you Idiot Frogs....!
runninboy More than 1 year ago
the best cheater i will give you that. But far from the best of anything else. I guess if you liked al capone you like Lance. By any means necessary...
Alexander Scott More than 1 year ago
Oh, poor little LA fans. You're heart break for the Cheat being caught is disgusting. Oh well, he deserves to lose all he gained. Ha, Ha, keep crying Lance fans, time will eventually help you heal your broken hearts.
PeterMc More than 1 year ago
Oh and who do you support? Which drug free Rider are you behind? Who is the greatest "Drug Free" rider in your History books?
Alexander Scott More than 1 year ago
Greg Lemond.
PeterMc More than 1 year ago
lol, if he is the greatest, then the sport is in a very poor state......
Pignone Fisso More than 1 year ago
You can't know for sure who is drug free. Not in cycling, and most certainly, not in any other sport. So I won't even attempt to answer the question of which drug-free rider I cheer for. I cheer for riders that make watching cycling exciting. I'm sure that includes some dopers, and some clean riders... all perhaps they're all dopers, or all clean.
Mr Sheen More than 1 year ago
Yes he was the best, the best of a whole bunch of cheats. Do they (the powers that be) really expect us to believe that the guys who finished in the next 5 slots were riding clean???? Come on Mr USADA, you cannot have one rule for one and a separate one for others. What about all the other blood bags found during Puerto, they did not all belong to cyclists. Level playing field, no drugs, he would have still have won, so whats the big problem? Witch hunt???? Certainly.
runninboy More than 1 year ago
No sorry no level playing field. He was able to dope more than others and bribe the UCI when he tested positive. In addition people who are more naturally gifted athletes do not get the performance benefit from dope that losers like Lance do. He was doped on steroids as a Texas high schooler. But even then as a pro triathlete he could not run a mile fast enough to beat the top high school GIRL runners. So he was a donkey who doped.
mr. tibbs More than 1 year ago
They already caught all of the guys who finished after him in the top 5 spots of most of his Tour wins. Ulle? Check. Basso? Check. Vino? Check. Mancebo? Check. Valverde? Check. And before he doped, Armstrong never placed in the top 30 of the Tour. Why are Armstrong defenders always so loud but so ignorant?
Steve Hougom More than 1 year ago
Before he doped? He'd been doping since 93. The only difference from 99 on was he was probably 10-15 lbs lighter which is HUGE in cycling assuming you maintain power.
perfessor More than 1 year ago
"The only difference from 99 on was he was probably 10-15 lbs lighter" Nah, he lied about that too...it was the cadence, nobody ever thought of that before.
bikegp More than 1 year ago
Witch hunt? No. That accusation is a desperate appeal to false justice by a thief. No system of justice is perfect. No system of justice catches every thief. But that is no reason to stop chasing thieves. Most justice systems are based on deterrence. Catching one big thief can generate more deterrence than catching many little ones. Think drug lords and mafia kingpins. The USADA's focus on LA is rational, but it cannot stop there. There needs to be many more "witch hunts" to rid cycling of this cancer.
PeterMc More than 1 year ago
Witch Hunt No? So they give all those who testify against him clemancy even though they admit to doing the exact same thing over the same period, extend their own statute of limitations for this one case, change their own rules for providing information to the accused prior to proceeding with the hearings and use the media to lever public opinion against the controlling bodies without producing proof of their involvement, not chasing those in the controliing bodies who supposedly were responsible for the cover-ups however targeting just one very small facet of the whole sport? If this doesn't come under the heading of witch hunt then what does in your book? Look I'm not saying either way on the Guilt of Armstrong because the whole thing has been run the same way that Al Gore & Co ran the mans responsibilty for climate change "debate"! There has been no debate invloved. 11 people out of all those who were on the USPS, Discovery rosters over all those years claim to have been pushed into the cycle by LA & co. Why aren't the others members claiming the same? Why aren't we hearing the explanation from USADA as to why they didn't hand their info about the cover-ups to WADA to chase those in the UCI & USAOC who did the cover-ups (this would have forced a change in culture from the top down and thus make the sport cleaner, a main driver for Tygart apparently)
epofuel More than 1 year ago
Catching Lance is fine - but bikegp and runninboy, THE WHOLE SPORT WAS DIRTY. What part of that don't you understand? There will always be new drugs, new cheating. I'm sorry, but there is no Santa Claus. Clean cyclists aren't going to sprint up the Alps. Very sorry to say. But more troubling, however, are the guys who doped and remain in the sport with little or no sanction. Guys like Danielson, Vaughters, Zabriskie. And guys who want to 'help out', like Hincapie. Doping, and Lance's doping, made their careers. Just because the big Kingpin goes down doesn't mean the little guys are all of the sudden 'good guys'. No, they are most definitely still dopers. And they need loooooong bans. If you confess when you don't have to, then you can make an argument for a reduction. If you confess under penalty of perjury, well, you should have a long, long, long ban as well. The double standard of Lance v.s. his minions has got to stop. Either they all go, or they all stay. You say it differs in degree? Well, that difference is surely not enough to keep those other guys around. Kick them OUT. Kick them all out, or let them all stay. Can't wait to see who gets Lance's Olympic Medal! Ain't that gonna be a laugh.
DavePat More than 1 year ago
"The double standard of Lance v.s. his minions has got to stop. Either they all go, or they all stay." What you are conveniently forgetting is that doping was THE LEAST of the charges that Armstrong ran from. Far more serious were the charges of trafficking over multiple countries and continents for over a decade, conspiracy, witness tapering and intimidation, coercing others to dope, administration, etc. It's these far more serious charges that put Armstrong into a completely different class of criminality than the other mere dopers.
epofuel More than 1 year ago
You might be right - so give Lance life, but to highlight the difference, I would say give at least 10 years for the other guys. That would highlight the difference - but still keep them out of the sport. Fair? Organized doping did not start with Lance. The Spanish were equally vicious in terms of doping and keeping mouths shut (Kelme). Every teammate of LA had the option to quit cycling, but they chose to dope. A few left, but most chose to stay and eat at big daddy's table. There was no 'coercion' to dope! That's what nobody gets. There are TONS of other jobs out there besides cycling. Nobody 'deserves' to be a cyclist, just like nobody 'deserves' to be a Doctor. You get there by fighting, according to the rules, explicit or implicit. These guys all did that, as consenting adults. I think LA was right to be pissed at them - "once you do Epo, don't go writing a book about it!" That must be the case. Or if you DO write a book, don't implicate others. Nobody wants responsibility (not Lance, to be fair) - each person's doping concerns ONLY THAT SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL, in this case. Nobody forced anyone. So Lance isn't in a totally different class. Other traffickers came before - Festina, Kelme, Once, PDM....etc. And others followed. But nobody wants to look at this, because they want a nice, clean resolution to this. Sorry, there isn't going to be one. All cyclists follow the rules of the day. Or rather, they dope, according to the rules and controls. That is never going to change, as human nature never changes.
Alpe73 More than 1 year ago
Spot on. I accept that Lance doped; not such a big deal in context, really. The spin about coercion is, as you suggest, laughable. That these guys, including Millar, are now the darlings of cycling morality makes me cringe. Yep, Lance took the fall for all - a neat, tidy prosecution, but incomplete and therefore essentially unbalanced to the core.
LaBici More than 1 year ago
I guess his "Super Doper Fans" Phil Liggot and Paul Sherwin and Bob Roll will be eating a lot of CROW come next July! There boy is now totally without a medal. The Phil and Paul patter was especially bad and sycophantic to the point that they had become a parody of themselves.
thebikeandnothingbut.... More than 1 year ago
No sympathy here... I should join the list suing him for damages. I went to France and followed the Tour in 2001 as a once in a lifetime trip and had the experience ruined by the then "winner". In all seriousness, where armstrong was smart was using the whole cancer bit. A serious disease that in some way, touches a lot people directly or otherwise on this planet. By having all these supporters outside cycling who see his progress and "dare to dream", it goes beyond just riding a lap of France. I've known a few people over the years who suffered cancer in one form or another and even with their determination and courage, never quite made it back to what they were before they were ill. To come back to levels beyond what you started at "un-assisted", is a bit too Hollywood for the realists amongst us. Only cover ups by the authorities and those with vested interests prevented this coming to a head earlier. More heads should roll at all level.
epofuel More than 1 year ago
So, when exactly was it that you felt it was 'a bit too Hollywood' for the realists among us? I think that everyone in their heart of hearts, knew. Suing him for damages? It was this blind faith combined with irrational expectations that led people to get 'duped'. If anything, people duped themselves. In terms of having the race 'ruined'...how was it ruined? Were you not in lovely France, enjoying the country? The food? The land? The architecture? The language? The hot girls? The race and the results are but a tiny blip on the wider screen of life. You should enjoyed the country - the race is but a spectacle! :)
thebikeandnothingbut.... More than 1 year ago
I think you may have missed the tongue in cheek reference to my comments. The Hollywood bit referred to the "hero", down and out, picks himself up off the floor, overcomes the odds (cancer), beat the bad guys (Ulrich et al) and rides off in to the sunset. Only this time the "hero" fell foul of a bigger hero (Taggart) and was banished to the bad lands where he should have been alot earlier. Suing armstrong for ruining my experience was another tongue in cheek attempt that may have missed the mark. You know how Americans are, if they feel they have been wronged in any way the solution is to sue someone, anyone, just get retribution. Also, armstrong's defence to anything he didn't like was to get the lawyers in. If anyone should be sued it should be the UCI. The incompetence they have demonstrated time and again in the running of cycling borders on the criminal. It is my firm belief that the reason he isn't defending this case anymore is that powers greater than armstrong had a word in his ear about dropping it. I believe the sponsors that stuck by him for so long saw the writing on the wall and did not want to be implicated any further and risk terminal damage to their commercial value. That's why when the going really got tough, all the multinationals jumped. Some UCI people should jump too, before they are pushed. As to France, I'm a regular visitor for all the reasons you mention and more. I am again heading there in 2013 and hopefully in the future I can be there for the Tour in July. See you there.
epofuel More than 1 year ago
Woops! My fault for missing that! Reading it again with different eyes, I do see it. Sometimes threads are hard to interpret - if only a little tongue in cheek finds itself in a sea of bologna, it gets read the wrong way. But I'm really interested in all this Armstrong stuff - not so much because I care about Armstrong, but because it seems to present real, human problems - the Armstrong saga could be any other saga for the sake of this argument. I guess I was just really blown away (or not, depending on how I look at it) at the behavior of certain pro cyclists and certain officials. It's not that I ever liked Lance - I knew what the deal was and that he could be quite a slimy guy at times - but he's not slimy ALL the time. If you place him in the context of the world of cycling as a human being, it's all totally understandable. Just like the lame behavior of (some) of his former teammates. It's lame, but it's understandable, because man, we can be a bunch of wimps when it comes to saving our own skins. Not only are they ok with trashing Lance when the time comes, but even worse, they sell themselves short, as much less manly, as well! They act like babies - and that is not fitting to the job at all. Enjoy France! Enjoy the girls! The mountains! The buildings! Riders and races disappear and are forgotten - often soon after they are over. Every year is a new year. But the land, the culture, the 'stage', so to speak, lives forever, and belongs to everyone.
Chuck_T More than 1 year ago
Do some more reading and find out how he really treated people, Simeone didn't even testify against him. Your "It's not that I ever liked Lance" claim is completely transparent. And yeah he wasn't "slimy" all the time, even sociopath's can be charming (in a rattle snake kind of way).
bikerbruce More than 1 year ago
EPOfuel and Blackbeard, well thought out and well written. But on a different thread...Lance is being quiet as a church mouse because even a peep out of him and the angry cats will pounce. But will he bide his time then go to an actual court and question the proceedings? There are many precedents of law that were violated in the USADA case; they even broke their own self created rules. And for the silliness about conspiracy and crossing country lines; those are involved with every rider who has ever doped. As for witness intimidation and tampering, what did he do? Did he tell 'em he wouldn't ride bicycles with them anymore? He'd take his toys and leave? These criminal terms has been transferred to a game where boys/men ride bicycles and they don't apply.
Gary Lee More than 1 year ago
Welcome to the wide, wide world of sports folks. No one's clean in the top echelon of any sport. But you give up a big name here and there and we are to believe that change is coming? Just like after the MLB's Mitchell Report? Or the Festina Affair? Or Puerto? The song's getting old but they continue to repeat it. Clean is a myth.
Chuck_T More than 1 year ago
Unfortunately I think you're right Gary, there may be a few, but only a few. I'll still ride my bike though.